Talk:Historicity of Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

Scholars of antiquity?

Are there any relevant scholarly sources written by historians who first studied the cultural context and then took a thorough (unbiased) look at the historicity question? That seems implied by the term "scholars of antiquity", used multiple times in the article, yet most –if not all– of the cited authors in this article seem to be biblical scholars (who basically start studying religious texts and then look for similarities and dissimilarities in historical knowledge).

Do they maybe draw different conclusions, or do they at least approach the question with a bit more nuance?

In any case, if only biblical scholars are cited for the purported consensus among "scholars of antiquity", I think the claim should reflect that, even if some biblical scholar have made claims that included this specific term (or are these claims backed up with reliable surveys with proper attention to this difference?). Joortje1 (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This terminology is not invented by wikieditors. It is in Bart Ehrman's "Forged: Writing in the Name of God" ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. pp. 256–257. He says "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." We go by what the sources say. We do not have to create an argument from multiple sources as that may be WP:SYN. Interestingly there are numerous other sources saying similar things in different ways - see "Note 1" in the article. Here is Larry Hurtado another scholar explaining in more detail the same thing [1]. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you understand the part where I said "even if some biblical scholars have made claims that included this specific term"?

I read notes 1 and 2; they are among the reasons for some of the criticism that I and others have put forward on the talk pages.

Indeed, numerous other sources said similar things about consensus, so it should be easy to pick some terminology that sounds a bit more credible. Maybe even from a source that actually backs it up?

Indeed, biblical scholar Larry Hurtado explains the same thing in more detail, and basically in the same way. More claims of overwhelming consensus that are not backed up. More rambling rebukes of rambling myhthicist claims. No lucid arguments for historicity. Not helpful. Joortje1 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The way this page presented the subject with citations of certain biblical scholars almost had me believe that the whole discipline is exclusively populated by credulous pigheaded individuals. But fortunately it's not just outsiders who question the dubious methods that many of the scholars have been accustomed to. See for instance the book "Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity". A summarizing review on Themelios concludes: "Anyone invested in historical Jesus research must come to terms with the arguments put forth in this book. The authors have raised serious questions regarding the way historical Jesus research has been done, and they show that the commonly accepted tools have largely failed to deliver what they promised. This book is an important starting point for progressing in what some feel is a stalled discipline."Joortje1 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems the issue you have is what scholars have said rather than what we are bound by in wikipedia. As you mentioned ...biblical scholar Larry Hurtado explains the same thing in more detail, and basically in the same way. More claims of overwhelming consensus that are not backed up. More rambling rebukes of rambling myhthicist claims. No lucid arguments for historicity."

Every wikieditor has an opinion on what any source says. But we are not here to push our views over what established scholars or sources say. We go by what reliable sources say. Even mythicists admit that the consensus is that Jesus existed (Robert Price, G.A. Wells (formerly mythicist), etc). See note 1 and note 2. If you wish to read more on it, read some of the sources cited there - and of course they back up their claims. The issue seems to be that their arguments are not convincing to you perhaps. But keep in mind that mythicist arguments fail to convince them too. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The main issue I have concerns the tone and general quality of this article (see above: "Style", and some of the other entries). When looking at the citations in notes 1 and 2 and some of the available cited sources, this seems to be a problem that's inherent in biblical scholars. No wonder Price noted “consensus is no criterion". In the Ehrman quote (double cited in the lede), he sounds more like Donald Trump than like a scholar, and what I've read of his blog (cited on the page) was extremely shoddy.

"The issue seems to be that their arguments are not convincing to you perhaps." I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who's not convinced. Yet, I'm still quite open-minded about the issue and suppose that some proper scholarly arguments can be found, somewhere. Unfortunately, the current quality of the article (as well as that of your replies) make it likely that many readers with even the slightest talent for critical thinking will be even less convinced after visiting these pages.

"But keep in mind that mythicist arguments fail to convince them too." Yeah, those biblical scholars have made that abundantly clear, no need to repeat it. I've yet to have a proper look into the mythicist arguments and their sources. For some reason, these are not represented on this page (could it be that some wikipedians are pushing their views after all?)

"of course they back up their claims". Good, can you direct me towards a source that includes a scholarly basis for claims about near-universal consensus among scholars of antiquity. Keep in mind that "scholars of antiquity" is not the same as a selection of biblical scholars. Joortje1 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

See Q3 in the FAQ and expand "List of books on non-historicity of Jesus" and also see Q7 on the FAQ and expand "Quotes on the historicity of Jesus". The consensus views are repeated in dozens of books there including those by mythicists acknowledging the consensus against them. We go by what the majority of sources state, not an assessment of a topic by random wikieditors. As can be seen from Q3, mythicism in general sufferers from a lack of academics and self-publishing. Keep in mind WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTESSAY. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not the assesment of a topic by "random wikieditors". If you check what I wrote, you'll find refererences to reliable sources in which eleven biblical scholars express very similar doubts about the traditional methods of many of their colleagues.

Please note the Wikipedia Talk page guidelines: "The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, (...) and examining the reliability of references."

No need to refer to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTESSAY. No reason to discredit mythicism (I'm not a mythicist and this post was not about mythicism). Please keep in mind that your comments can easily be interpreted as attempts to enforce a non-neutral POV by discouraging others through WP:GAME tactics, and that this can have a polarising effect (my apologies for any responses that may therefore have been a bit too cynical, impatient or too sharp).

If you don't know any sources of the type asked for, please just don't respond. Joortje1 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990, two questions I would like you to answer:

"We go by what the majority of sources state"

I suppose you believe this to be a very important rule. Can you please refer to the specific wikipedia guideline?

For a remarkable amount of statements, this article relies on individual opinions of biblical scholars (just one per statement). Isn't this the opposite of "We go by what the majority of sources state"? Joortje1 (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to consensus view that Jesus existed, if you look at my comment. See FAQ Q6. I was paraphrasing it a bit. It mentions guideline and provides context on the matter in the last sentence. The conclusion, at bare minimum, is the same, but every scholar’s reasoning for reaching such a conclusion may differ, obviously. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to have misinterpreted that.

Interesting how Q6 states "[we should] quote a scholar who states what the "academic consensus" may be"

("may be" indeed)

The actual WP:RS/AC guideline instead gives this advice: "Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus."

Quite the difference. The article could thus be improved by following the guideline [edit: I meant the quoted guideline advice]. Too satisfy more critical readers, it would be best if a citation can be found in journals that don't specialize in biblical studies, so that claims about "Virtually all scholars of antiquity" or "nearly all historians" ring more true. Joortje1 (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The guideline says simply "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Reliable academic sources are already in the article for such claims. Q5 of the FAQ shows the diversity of scholars from various backgrounds and training on the matter. It certainly is not a club of fundamentalists or just biblical scholars. For example, consensus views are stated by Greco-Roman historians like Michael Grant, who is an atheist by the way, and ex-mythicists like G.A Wells. For example here is Grant: "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200)

Ironically, there are surveys of mythicism too such as those of Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey which show that mythicists often come from non-scholarly backgrounds, and of the few that are academic - they are usually biblical scholars like Robert Price or Thomas Thompson for example. They note that pretty much all mythicists are atheists who have anti-Christian agendas. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

So, an answer to the question that started this post could simply have been:

Michael Grant "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" (1977)

Outdated and possibly more popularising than academic, but my sincere thanks nonetheless.

Any more? Joortje1 (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

FAQ [2] "Quotes on the historicity of Jesus" has a grip of academic sources. Status has not changed to the present. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I had another look at that list.

Virtually all of the bluelinked names were identified as NT scholars or biblical scholars on Wikipedia. We thus have no problem believing that many biblical scholars agree on historicism.

I think I found 2 "modern" historicist quotes from people who can arguably be identified as historians; 1 deceased (over 10 years ago), the other a 83-year old retired scholar who has always been a devout Christian. Did I miss any?

Don't you agree that it's not very factual to claim something like academic consensus among "scholars of antiquity" without a WP:RS from a non-Christian person who actually studied history? Joortje1 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

FAQ Q2 and Q5 addresses this - "Moreover, Wikipedia policies do not prohibit Jewish scholars as sources on the history of Judaism, Buddhist scholars as sources on Buddhism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.".

Considering that even the few credentialed mythicists that exist tend to be biblical scholars too (Q3 on FAQ), I don't see why being a biblical scholar would even be an issue. The backgrounds of any "biblical scholars" makes them experts in history and other stuff, if you look into it. They are trained in numerous fields (e.g. Archaeology, Egyptology, Assyriology, Textual Criticism, Linguistics, History, etc.) Also, Q5 details that there are scholars that are Jews, Muslims, atheists, and agnostics and they all pretty much agree on historicity. See Stanton on note 1 and Van Voorst on note 2. I already mentioned Ehrman, Grant, Wells, Hurtado too. They make the claims. They are all qualified experts on these matters and they do not limit it to “biblical scholars”. No source has been presented claiming that scholars who study antiquity even deny Jesus’ existence in any mainstream sense. Instead per FAQ Q3 most Jesus denial scholars are lawyers, attorneys, accountants, land surveyor, film maker, philosophers, etc. Not scholars of antiquity. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

(Let's save the problems of expertise and potential bias for their own topics)

Please allow me to illustrate the issue at hand with a silly parable:

Apples are fruit.

Bananas are fruit.

Dozens of tomatoes and 2 kiwi’s declare: “Virtually all fruit agrees that circa 2000 years ago ..." (et cetera)

The most factual way to describe this situation: "Many tomatoes have claimed that virtually all fruit agrees that..." Unfortunately, many critical readers will notice a red flag signalling that the tomatoes’ claim is very problematic (if no further evidence is provided).

It thus seems better to say: "All tomatoes agree that...". Paraphrasing a factual statement in clear and specific terminology –with WP:RS that back up the fact– is preferable over blindly quoting (purported) experts.

WP:PARAPHRASE (WP:REPUTABLE: “Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.”) WP:RSCONTEXT

Another option is to look for sufficient, reliable citations of the other types of fruit. Joortje1 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have seen this wording “The mainstream scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed.” I think this would work. And is short and simple. No sources have been presented stating the opposite or splitting headcount like you have done. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be a great improvement. My sincere thanks for your patience, understanding and for offering this suggestion!

I'd still prefer if the text would (immedetiately) clarify that this topic is considered to be the expertise of biblical scholars (rather than historians), but we could clarify that in some explanation about the methods used (for instance in a section that seems to be promised by the article's section title "Modern scholarship". There are also already a few lines on this spread throughout the text (for instance in the "Quest" section).

It's unfortunate that so few historians have commented on the topic, so we'll have to make do with what we've got.

I may be able to present a few WP:RS that state something opposite, but I will skip those for now. There is Ehrman's quote: "I would say that most biblical scholars in fact are not historians. But some are." Non-scholarly blog posts may do for personal opinions, but I don't think this quote or anything like it is very useful for the page. It's still a good one to keep in mind, considering my argument and apparent confusion about it.

Given some other reactions, I'd better not edit the page any time soon and leave it to you or others to see whether the suggested change actually gets through. Joortje1 (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm..I am afraid you are are the only one that keeps on thinking that they are only "biblically scholars" (and that somehow they are lower quality scholars) and thinking in a "biblical scholars" vs "historians" mentality as if there are any actual different opinions on this. You have yet to provide a source that says what you are saying.

The quotes from numerous sources generalize to "competent scholar of antiquity" - Ehrman, "all historians" - Stanton, "secular scholars" - Wells, "serious scholar " - Grant, "Biblical scholars and classical historians" - Van Voorst, etc. They do not say only biblical scholars believe this.

Even the link on Ehrman you mentioned, he states "But just as some biblical scholars are particularly adept at literary criticism or at philosophical enquiry, others are expert in history. And I’m one of those."

Now that you know Ehrman is an expert in history, see what he says on his field "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure." (Forged: Writing in the Name of God)

It is very clear that he is not saying only "biblical scholars". None of the other experts sources say that exclusivist stuff either. Not even the mythicists. If there were academic sources saying stuff like "many or a good chunk of historians doubt Jesus existed", don't you think that mythicists would capitalize on that? Also, at that point you would not have mythicism being a fringe theory like it is today. Just look at the state of mythicism with this self-published collection of numerous mythicists "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?" Only like one has credentials on antiquity, Robert Price as usual.

You cannot limit consensus to mainly "biblical scholars" when 1) no source does so and 2) mythicism has such an abundance unacademic proponents and such scarcity of academic proponents.

I will just say that, overall, it just looks like you are constantly imposing your beliefs on the status of scholarship on historicity of Jesus, when the sources by actual experts are stating it differently. As far I can tell, you did not present any sources supporting your particular view of 'consensus is mainly biblical scholars'. Even the book you mentioned earlier on "Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity" never argued this. That book pertained only to "criteria of authenticity" which is only one set of tools used by scholars. There are many other tools they use besides this.

Just as a freebee, there are collections on Socratic scholarship such as "Socrates: An Annotated Bibliography" which has a section of a grip of academic sources on Jesus and Socrates - none of them argue Jesus did not exist. So you have a good sample from Socratic scholars, not denying Jesus existed. No surprise there. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe your reply is disingenuous and insulting towards Joortje1 who is going out of his way to find a happy medium. You say he is "the only one that keeps on thinking that they are only "biblically scholars" (and that somehow they are lower quality scholars) and thinking in a "biblical scholars" vs "historians" mentality as if there are any actual different opinions on this." Well I feel similarly to him so his is definitely not an outlier opinion. You claim that biblical scholars have no less respect than historians, so it seems everyone should be happy to use that term. Cutelyaware (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—a tertiary source—and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the question of what to say about historicity is a completed settled question. Note that this does not mean that Jesus' historicity is true (or false), merely that the proportion of reliable sources writing about the topic are overwhelmingly in support of Jesus' historicity. While one may disagree about the first point (actual historicity) it's impossible to disagree about the second.

Here, for example, is Bart Ehrman on the views of mythicists:

"These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99% of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land one in a bona fide department of biology."

The views of mythicists are fringe views, not taken seriously by actual scholars; the views of reliable sources are massively in agreement about the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia takes no position on whether Jesus existed or not; we summarize what the reliable sources say, and the results are in: Jesus existed.

Your fruit argument fails, in the difference between WP:INTEXT, which does indeed require attribution for certain views, but only when they are of biased sources or minority views, and WP:WikiVoice, where we state the majority view *without* intext attribution (and with footnotes, of course). So, no: we do not have to say that "Many tomatoes have claimed that...", we merely state in the article, "Jesus existed", full stop (in whatever words are agreed upon). There is no need to say, "Most scholars say Jesus existed", because it is the overwhelmingly view of scholars. (There is no prohibition from saying it, either, especially when the topic itself is, "What do scholars say about the existence of Jesus", where the longer version is directly relevant to the topic.)

There is no need to "look for sufficient, reliable citations of the other types of fruit", and in fact, this runs contrary to WP:CHERRYPICKING and would render the results of your search inadmissible in the article. Because of the vast amount of material on the topic of the historicity of Jesus, if you search for a particular result that pleases you, you will probably find it, but that doesn't mean you can add it to the article, even if they are reliable sources, because it would be contrary to WP:DUEWEIGHT. It is this last principle, WP:DUEWEIGHT, that governs this whole question, because *even* if you find a dozen (or a hundred) reliable sources for your point, they are dwarfed by the near-totality of reliable sources (99.99%, per Ehrman) that say the opposite. (This is also the answer to your question about "I suppose you believe this to be a very important rule", and it is not a "guideline", but policy.)

If you don't doubt that the overwhelming majority of sources say this, then we're done, because that's what we do, here: we summarize the views of the majority of sources, right, wrong, or in-between. If you do doubt it, then because the literature is so vast, it's impossible to tote it all up here and count the ones on each side—the Talk page would end up listing thousands of sources. What we do in cases like that, is to use WP:TERTIARY sources as a proxy for what WP:SECONDARY sources say: i.e., encyclopedias, college textbooks, and so on. If you actually do this, I think you will find that 100% of tertiary sources are in agreement on the question, without even mentioning the opposing, fringe view at all. Let me know if you find a single tertiary source that disagrees.

So, with reference to your original question, "Do [scholars of antiquity] maybe draw different conclusions?", we have the answer as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and it is what Ramos1990 said in response to your OP: "[Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." That sums it up, and no amount of cherry-picking is going to change that, therefore that is what Wikipedia must say. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these concerns. Especially the WP:TERTIARY remark in relation to WP:DUEWEIGHT.

I'm very sorry, but I don't understand how looking for a source by an objective historian can be considered WP:CHERRYPICKING and how this would be a problem for WP:DUEWEIGHT. Did you maybe think the bananas or apples from the parable represented mythicists? My apologies if this was confusing. I'm glad Ramos1990 got the point. Don't you think critical readers would appreciate the addition of the opinion of a historian?

I understand the concerns about fringe theories and WP:RS. I even think I still slightly lean to the pro-historicity side personally, but that shouldn't influence the collaborative effort here. If you're a bit sensitive to it, the polarising effect starts immediately in the lead section of the article and just doesn't seem to stop. On the talk page, it's probably mainly miscommunication, and I could have been much more tactful myself, but it sure feels like you're the enemy if you are not impressed by the promised "certain and clear evidence", and/or the style/tone/quality of the page (and, for me at least, especially the disdain towards people who seem to think differently).

I believe Tom Dykstra (in a review of Ehrman and Brodie) adressed many of the problems quite clearly, with proper NPOV, and in a scholarly tone.

His conclusion (p.30): "To a degree greater than that in many other academic fields, you have to take pronouncements of fact by biblical scholars with a grain of salt. And those who express the most confidence in historical reconstructions or the sharpest disdain toward contrary opinions are precisely the ones to be most wary about. The truth is elusive and can best be approached by reading multiple viewpoints, judging the evidence critically, and remembering that ultimately all biblical history is a matter of highly debatable possibilities and probabilities."

Note that this is a historian specializing in origins of christianity (Ph.D., History. University of Washington) publishing in the Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies (in 2014). Such quotes are not exactly stuff that's useful on the page, but clearly subscribe to my argument here.

My apologies for being too engrossed in my search for more opinions of historians (preferably with a PH.D. in that particular discipline, other than Carrier) to bring up this source earlier.

I even overlooked this: "The consensus of biblical scholars is that Jesus existed as a historical person, and those who assign him to the category of fictional character are still few and far between. Their ranks are growing, but their views are met with disdain by the majority." (cp. 30)

Note that Dykstra (a historian) was careful enough to specify which scholars we are talking about. So, I'd love to see him quoted (I'll understand if others don't like the growing ranks and disdain bit, and "still few and far between" is not really an encyclopedic tone). Please consider the relatively recent date, the very specific credentials, and the WP:RS/AC advice: "Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus" (also note that Ehrman may be a great biblical scholar, who considers himself an expert historian, but that "Did Jesus Exist" nonetheless is published by HarperOne and should probably be considered a popular book, rather than a scholarly work). Joortje1 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that Dykstra says "A sea change in scholarly consensus moving in this direction is not likely anytime soon, but some movement has begun. A book like Is this not the Carpenter with well-known and respected scholars contributing to it would have been all but unthinkable just a decade or two earlier. So the tide has changed and it’s reasonable to expect further progress toward the conclusion that we know very little about Jesus, and that any effort at achieving certainty is futile." He was hopeful that scholars will just give up certainty on historical matters on Jesus - which is what the paper is all about. He is not a mythicist however but acknowledges consensus in general is unlikely to be overhauled. This was almost 10 years ago and no progress has been made in that direction. There was some traction in 2010, 2012 - like Dryska said - and climaxed around 2015 with Carrier's work. Certainly there are not many "historians" or historical experts that have embraced his uncertainty camp and even less the mythicist camp, since most scholars are positivist by default.

And the only "historian" to argue for mythicism in the last 100 years was Richard Carrier (according to him). He has not published academic research on this in almost 10 years too and has since published back with small atheist publishers with "Jesus from Outer Space". His reception was that his views are fringe and very questionable. I think that once scholars saw the quality of argumentation for Jesus denialism, this has died down immensely - ergo recent collections of mythicist like "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?" show the lack of "historians" and historical experts in the mythicist camp to date. Even Carrier (historian) has admitted that only him and Lataster (religious studies) 2019 book (which was a republication of a self-published book which literally rehashed Carrier's arguments) are the only development in the past 10 years on this. Both making no impact in academia. Carrier admits in his review [3] in 2022 of "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism" that "I am also the first historian in a hundred years to publish a complete peer-reviewed, academic press argument for the origin and development of Christianity that does not include a historical Jesus. My book, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield-Phoenix, 2014) was followed by a second mainstream peer-reviewed volume [Lataster (religious studies scholar, not a historian)] by analyzing the debate over Jesus historicity, which also found reason for doubt. Hence, I am sympathetic to arguments against the historicity of Jesus. But I have also been notoriously and relentlessly critical of most such arguments, particularly when their amateurism and gross failures of logic, methodology, or fact (sometimes all three) make the job of real scholars so much harder. It is difficult to have a credible thesis taken seriously when the field is swamped with crankery." and also states "This volume’s lack of any of the peer-reviewed specialists on the subject of historicity (which includes not only myself and Lataster, but Thomas Thompson, Thomas Brodie, and others) is not entirely a defect, as their positions are well-enough represented by some of the contributors it does have, and a valid function of this book can simply be to supplement our work rather than repeat it."

There you go. Carrier, the only "historian" in 100 years for mythicism, lays out the latest few proponents who have actively argued for Jesus denialism and observes the scarcity of "peer-reviewed specialists on the subject of historicity". It is a very very small group indeed still today. Carrier being the only "historian" to argue for it in 100 years is a pretty revealing! Historians like Michael Grant and Paul Johnson have done surveys much more recently than 100 years as have numerous other scholars of antiquity. Carrier is not at the caliber of Michael Grant or even Paul Johnson - both mainstream historians of so many topics that have shed light on numerous non-biblical topics and also surveyed literature on Jesus. Carrier has mainly done self publishing on his works on Jesus, so he does not have much of an academic credibility on this topic like some people tend to believe.

With this information - that Mythicism has 1 historian in 100 years - it seems like requesting consensus of Jesus' existence to be affirmed by sources by "historians" who have a specific PhD in history is pretty silly since what we really need is actual academic scholars who actively argue for mythicism at all. Virtually no academic or credentialed scholars or historians argue for Jesus denialism. Certainly not enough to remove fringe status.

So Dryska's "So the tide has changed" seems to be mostly a dried up beach with some salty moisture. Most scholars take mythicism with a massive grain of salt because after seeing the recent scholarship for it, it does seem like academic crankery. As a side note, Ehrman and Casey are right about that the proponents of mythicism generally have anti-religious agendas - the only historian in 100 years for mythicism fits the bill perfectly. Much better sources are need either way for inclusion on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990: I wanted to agree with your earlier suggestion to say "The mainstream scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed," before finding it to carry the opposite problem. Mainstream non-biblical scholars don't argue this, although commonly refer to the era of Jesus—his presumed birth year having been set as a standard of time. (Scholars' specific wording can even betray their level of reverence for Christianity, though less in recent years thanks to CE.)

Biblical scholars agree that Jesus existed, but this can be seen as largely a war between the religious, who defend the supernatural, and the secular, who focus on probable events (baptism and crucifixion) as a way of dismissing fundamentalism (with its dedication to logically impossible miracles). Biblical scholars may vaguely assert wide mainstream support to bolster their own arguments, but this lacks statistical backing. (As such, these claims should always be attributed!)

I'd support the more accurate wording that "The consensus of biblical scholars is that Jesus historically existed," leading to notes and nuanced discussion. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources do not support your limited wording though. And like I mentioned in the thread, notes 1 and notes 2 state scholarship in broader terms - none limit it to biblical scholars only. They use specific terms like Historians, classical historians, scholars of antiquity, etc. Larry Hurtado expands further [4] to "The overwhelming body of scholars, in New Testament, Christian Origins, Ancient History, Ancient Judaism, Roman-era Religion, Archaeology/History of Roman Judea, and a good many related fields as well, hold that there was a first-century Jewish man known as Jesus of Nazareth, that he engaged in an itinerant preaching/prophetic activity in Galilee, that he drew to himself a band of close followers, and that he was executed by the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate."

Here is Grant a Greco-Roman Historian "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Where do they limit it to only biblical scholars? Where does Grant limit it to biblical scholars? If you don't have a source for the specific claims of only biblical scholars, then there is not much to discuss on the matter any more. The numerous sources already compiled in the notes 1 and 2 and the FAQ show this to be extremely well understood by scholars of all stripes that have studied and have written about the historicity of Jesus. Even the mythicists do not limit it to just biblical scholars as they talk about scholarship in general. In fact, Carrier above has confessed that he is the only ancient historian to address historicity for mythicism in 100 years. You honestly think that this means that mythicism is widespread in scholarship after such and admission?

Like you observed, using limited terms like "biblical scholars" -which is not what the sources are saying - causes unnecessary ambiguity. I agree with you that the term "biblical scholar" leads to more problems as you said "...this can be seen as largely a war between the religious, who defend the supernatural, and the secular, who focus on probable events (baptism and crucifixion)". Do you want to add this type of ambiguity and false tension/dichotomy to the article?

Here is Ehrman, a historian "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."

User:Mathglot and User:Jeppiz have explained it. We go by what the sources say, not wikieditor analysis. The sources are explicit about this.

I must say that this getting very tiring. Asking everyone to provide multiple sources specifically stating what you are arguing and none providing any. Only odd arguments that go against what the sources by experts are saying. Read the FAQ it answers all of these questions about consensus, your statistical backing concerns, provides dozens of sources stating consensus from scholars of all sorts of academic disciplines and personal backgrounds, etc.

My question is why are some of you contradicting what the sources are saying? Without providing sources explicitly saying what you are proposing?

In light of all of this, "The mainstream scholarly consensus" broad enough to capture what the sources are saying - that the scholarship that exists that addresses the historicity of Jesus, agree that he did exist. "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree" would do the same thing, but the "The mainstream scholarly consensus" is more broad, generic, and acceptable for the lead I think. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990: we are in agreement, along with the near-totality of sources. It is getting tiring, and will you permit me to suggest to you, that the best response to these endless, baseless comments, is no response? Consensus on this topic is beyond clear, and I will make no further comment in this discussion, and if you do the same, you'll have more time to devote to whatever you enjoy working on. Let them talk to each other; no need for us to waste our valuable time here further. Over, and out. (edit conflict × 2) Mathglot (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I read "The mainstream scholarly consensus" to indicate that all notable scholars accept that Jesus existed. As has been pointed out, it actually only refers to scholars who study the topic. (I was largely confused by our citation of Stanton, who invokes the phrase "nearly all historians".) Moving forward, there could be a greater spotlight on whom the cited scholars are, as well as a summary of their specific reasoning, namely the amplitude of ancients who believed Jesus to exist. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for this lengthy reply, hopefully it will help to close this discussion down (please consider holding back with new input, especially if it doesn't really pertain to the question at hand).

Thank you, UpdateNerd, for your appreciation of the topic, and for your new input.

Thank you, Ramos 1990, for your extensive personal assessment of trends of doubt about HoJ during the last decade or so. I’d be interested in WP:RS that have looked into this very specific aspect. It seems relevant to the article and has not yet been addressed in the text. If you find any RS, please start a new Topic to discuss them and how to use them in the article (or just start adding the new information and their citations into the article).

Additional thanks, Ramos 1990, for restating your concerns about certain aspects of the topic at hand. I’m very sorry, but I fail to discover any new argument or new WP:RS that we have not already taken into account. (The by now well-known sources in the article and its FAQ seem less WP:REPUTABLE when it concerns objective history than that of Dykstra –see above– and now also Lataster – see below. If not yet pointed out in this discussion (I'm sure I did somewhere on this Talk Page): apart from WP guidelines about looking at dates, reputation of publishers et cetera, there are more or less legal requirements for objectivity in works by historians, as stated on Historian#Objectivity. Dykstra and Lataster point out where Ehrman and many other biblical scholars fail when it comes to such requirements. Early on, I also provided a RS indicating that many biblical scholars believe that the standard methodoloies used in their discipline were dubious or even practically useless). Please consider following Mathglot’s advice.

I did have a short look at that mainstream peer-reviewed volume (Brill Publishers 2019) by Raphael Lataster (a scholar specialised in Analytic Philiosphy of Religion). It is endorsed (see foreword) by biblical scholar professor James Crossley, editor Journal for the study of Historical Jesus. In the introduction, Lataster has this to say about the topic at hand:

“being effectively paradigmatic to the field, it would appear counter-intuitive for [biblical] scholars to seriously ask the question [whetherJesus was a historical person or not], since a negative result would invalidate and nullify much of their life’s work, and their future career prospects.” (p. 3)

“[Specialized Historical Jesus researchers] are generally not suitably equipped to investigate or argue for the higher level issue of Jesus' very existence.” (p. 3)

“(...) most scholars of the New Testament have religious loyalties: they want the text to be orthodox, or historical, or preachable, or relevant.” (p. 1)

“One common criticism [of ahistoricism] is that [ahistoricists] are on the fringes of scholarship. That is irrelevant, and also untrue.” (p. 1)

I didn't expect to find such precise analysis of my concerns in mainstream academic publications, but this is an even more up to date and more reputable source than Dykstra's piece. So we now have 2 relatively recent, very reputable WP:RS, specifically stating the problems about the topic at hand, 1 by a specialised historian and 1 by a highly specialised scholar (Analytic Philosphy of Religion). (I have not yet looked at Carrier's ideas. Sorry, but I don't like his tone very much. I'd say that Dykstra and Lataster will do for now).

Like others, I'd very much like to close this tiring discussion (please note that I only asked for a source by an objective historian, not for a tiring discussion, but I don't mind taking much or all of the blame, see "A Problem of WP:HEAR").

I therefore propose to follow up on UpdateNerd's suggestion (use the line "The consensus of biblical scholars is that Jesus historically existed", with the appropriate citations and whatnot). If desired, relating problems can be further discussed in dedicated Topics (for instance about the invalidity of biblical scholars' claims that ahistoricism is a fringe theory, per Lataster's mainstream academic publication).

Are there any serious objections? (if so, please take care to state them concise, factually and to the point) Joortje1 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem remains the same - scholars do generally agree that a human non-supernatural Jesus existed. However the wording used here on Wikipedia invariably is carefully tweaked to create the interpretation that the overwhelming consensus of mainstream scholarship also supports the historicity of the Divine Saviour as well. It would solve a huge amount of "tiring discussion" if this distinction is made clear in our choice of wording throughout this article, and all the other similar and over-lapping articles. Perhaps therefore rather use the line "The consensus of biblical scholars is that the Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time". As per Ehrman, 2012 pg 13. Wdford (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Joortje1, neither Dyrska or Lataster limit it to only biblical scholars. Since Dryska and Latatser mainly address specifically Ehrman in both works it makes sense that they would focus on them. Both sources are limited in their scope and both acknowledge that there is a consensus despite any quibbles they mention. As you can see though, sources by numerous well established scholars expand further than just "biblical scholars" (Grant, Johnson, Stanton, Hurtado, Ehrman, etc) and even specify term like 'non-Christians' included to show that this is found across the board. With Carrier's admission on the only historian (not an established professor or anything like that) in 100 years to argue for mythicism, re-verifies WP:Fringe status and how such views are definitely not widespread in existing scholarship that tackles such a question - in or outside "biblical studies". Just throwing this out there - "The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies" shows how diverse scholars of antiquity actually are - Archaeologists, Egyptologists, Assyriologists, Textual Criticics, Linguists, Historians, among other specialists. If you ever engage Roman history or Greek history or Mayan history or Incan History - the same expertise is required for those fields.

Many mythicists complain about the consensus in so many different ways including Lataster's religiophobic stereotyping and attempts at minimizing the consensus as if there is some hidden motive or special club. I think this is why Ehrman and Casey, both nonreligious scholars, surveyed mythicism comprehensively in the 2010s - to address such lines of complaining. I recommend their works (Casey's "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" is from an academic publisher FYI) since they discuss the issue of "bias" on the mythicist side - they are all atheists with detectable agendas. Whereas the consensus is made up of Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheist, Christians, etc. It not surprising that Latatser has very radical and discriminatory views too such that he argues "I assert that questioning the existence of Jesus of the so-called Historical Jesus is something that should only concern atheists, secularists, or non-Christians...But I also assert that Christian believers should generally not become involved in this debate, nor should non-believers thrust it upon them." Such religiophobic comments sound just like young earth creationists, holocaust deniers, etc - 'if only "we" would flood the academia, our views may become the prominent view'. However, G. A. Wells (a former iconic mythicist - also non-religious - also not a "biblical scholar") already said ""Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure." (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. 2007). I guess Lataster is not aware of that from a fellow ex-mythcist - who by the way revived mythicism in the 1970s and 1980s only to become a historicist upon further study. Every once in a while a scholarly text here or there may emerge, but none of them have shifted any paradigm. Spoiler alert - Lataster pretty much regurgitates Carrier's arguments (which has a strong basis in Earl Doherty) since the 2019 Brill book was you quoted was originally a self published book [5] in 2015. I think you will understand why these works have been either criticized or ignored by even non-religious scholars. As Carrier in my quote in blue above said "It is difficult to have a credible thesis taken seriously when the field is swamped with crankery." Ramos1990 (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Wdford. Good point about the divinity implications and checking the related articles. And a great suggestion to use that Ehrman quote! If only I had noticed that one at the time when I suggested to just pick some better terminology (somewehere near the top of this disccussion).

As Lataster explained, the consensus among biblical scholars basically comes with the job, no problem to accept that. We now have highly reputable WP:RS if we want to explain why that matters, but I believe making the suggested change will already make a huge difference for critical readers. This was just fact-checking and we lack data about historians; we only know of 2 qualified historians who have written about it in this century. It's interesting that both are not fans of claims that HoJ is certain, but we can only speculate about the silent majority. I prefer to focus at your practical suggestion.

Since an attributed quote seems undesirable so soon in the lead section, I'd prefer it if the text would read something like:The consensus of biblical scholars is that the Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence, but that there was a first century Jew called Jesus who was baptized and crucified. Ehrman's "who was very much a man of his time" sounds unencyclopedic, and implies that J was in line with the zeitgeist, while he can as easily be interpreted as an eccentric (or whatever else anybody prefers). If desired, Ehrman's precise wording can be fully quoted in the citation for the first half.

I don't really care about the particulars of the second half (Jew or man? From Nazareth?). Maybe it's just better to separate such details from the intriguing idea that the historicity of divinity and miracles is still debated.

Does anybody have any serious objection? (please stay concise, to the point, factual, neutral, et cetera) Joortje1 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Again. No source limits it to biblical scholars only. Why ignore the majority of sources already presented in the FAQ? Also no need to introduce divinity and miracles to the article since the article is not about such matters at all. This actually introduces confusion and pointless debate like this. This is not what we are seeking here on wikipedia. The current wording "The mainstream scholarly consensus is that a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in 1st century Palestine." is short, to the point, neutral, clear, in line with what the sources are saying on historicity and not mixing variables (divinty, miracles, etc). There is actually no consensus on divinity, miracles, either etc. See Note 3. Ehrman himself does not affirm or deny them. The same goes for divinity. The Wdford quote is Ehrman summarizing Albert Schweitzer's views, not his. Ehrmam says he agrees with a "rough outline" of Schweitzer after the quote. Later on Ehrman says that there is a rough outline scholars agree with of minimal information on Jesus on page 270. He states "Nearly all critical scholars agree at least on those points about the historical Jesus. But there is obviously a lot more to say, and that is where scholarly disagreements loom large - disagreements not over whether Jesus existed but over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher he was." Ramos1990 (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Problem. The first sentence of the lede defines the topic of the article as follows: "The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether or not Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, historically existed". By stating "the central figure of Christianity", we specifically open the door to the supernatural deity of miracles and resurrections. It is thus important to clarify that the majority of mainstream scholars accept the historicity of a mortal human Jesus only, and that the "Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today" is a different matter entirely. I have watched for years as this issue is diligently fudged, over and over and over, to permit the POV that the supernatural deity was historical. Wdford (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Then that can be simplified with "Jesus of Nazareth" and removing's "the central figure of Christianity". Ramos1990 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Having read through this long thread it seems like User:Ramos1990, User:Mathglot and User:Jeppiz are the only ones providing solid justifications and are consistent with emphasizing sources that are not fringe or by fringe scholars. Mathglot and Jeppiz have clearly laid out how to handle consensus on the topic by scholars and Ramos1990 has provided extensive quotes by mainstream scholars on the matter along with the FAQ and dozens of quotes. His latest wording proposal "Mainstream scholarly consensus" is what the sources are saying and is in NPOV fashion without mixing other variables that have nothing to do with historicity. The remaining editor User:Joortje1 should take their personal biased "analysis" of a consensus elsewhere as it is pretty much WP:SYN and WP:OR. No one does break downs for the consensus on evolution, spherical earth, etc. like this. The FAQ already details how to handle consensus clearly. We do not care about how you feel about all of this - they are experts you are not. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Mythicists and mythicists sympathizers do not have enough prominence in scholarship over the past 100 years to have their complaints be entertained on Wikipedia. And to push marginal views above the mainstream scholars is clearly WP:UNDUE and unacceptable. It wastes peoples time and is indeed not relevant to the topic of historicity like the other three editors I named have already said over and over. It is time to close this discussion. desmay (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What the guidelines actually say:

WP:SCHOLARSHIP

“Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.”

“Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.”

WP:RS/AC: "Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus."

WP:TERTIARY: Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

Of course I may sometimes misjudge things, but almost everything I pointed out seems to have been backed up with highly reputable WP:RS (and thus not merely a personal "biased" opinion).

If I understand it correctly, popular books by scholars should be considered primary sources (personal opinions about their subject, possibly with WP:OR). Claims of general consensus agreeing with an author in such books are therefore highly dubious, and, in the case of biblical scholars, further complicated because the scholarly tone, reliability, and their expertise (on the higher level of the HoJ question) is heavily contested in highly reputable WP:RS(see Dykstra, Lataster, the Themelios review, and presumably Carrier). The longer lists in the FAQ somewhat subscribe to the consensus claim, but using such a list would be the WP:OR WP: SYNTH problem (a principle pointed out by others, probably pertaining to my search for sources by historians, of which I already said there was too little data to draw conclusions about consensus in that field).

Why would I have to look up a tertiary source on HoJ, while nobody bothered to provide one for the current claim?

I still think the Dykstra source is the best we got. Apparently, the mainstream peer-reviewed Lataster and Carrier volumes deserve much more WP:DUEWEIGHT than the current citations, but don't blame me if you don't like their status or what they say. I wasn't the one who urged us to look at them or who emphasised their high reputability.

I'm sorry to have emphasised (originally intended as an aside) what I found problematic about the current article. I actually hoped to find an objective qualified historian's view that could more clearly (and in a proper scholarly tone) explain the theories about the existing evidence for HoJ.

For the moment, I don't think it's very fruitful to try to reach a consensus via this article's Talk Page discussions. It's probably much more efficient to just change whatever, as long as there's a reputable scholarly WP:RS citation for it.

Instead of disrupting my quest for sources by historians, could everybody who is not interested in those, please concentrate on, for instance, style improvements, a better structure of the article, clearer descriptions, checking whether statemenst are factual (and backed up with WP:RS of course), or adding relevant information (yes, from WP:RS, of course)? Joortje1 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You'll never win ... people have been trying to get this article to recognise the startlingly obvious fact that people that believe Jesus is the divine son of a Creator cannot be treated as objective sources as to whether or not he existed for at least a decade, if not more. The article gets corrected occasionally, but only for a short period of time.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Virtually all scholars

"Virtually all scholars" is a solid paraphrasing of the sources; "most" is an understatement: "nearly all historians"; "virtually everyone"; "overwhelming body of scholars." And yes, there is consensus to use this phrase; " number of removals" is not an argument to deviate from those sources; why do editors object against sticking to those sources? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Virtually all" is still not a consensus. A consensus is when everyone agrees, and I think you will agree that we are far from achieving a consensus on this point. Cutelyaware (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan. Random wikieditors tend to ignore the sources themselves despite quote after quote by actual scholars stating the position of mainstream scholarship (Note 1 and Note 2). The article should reflect what the sources say, per wikipedia policy, not random wikieditor "opinions" on the matter. The FAQ addresses this too. Cutelyaware, please see the FAQ on the scholarly consensus on the matter and how non-existence theories are WP:FRINGE. The phrase "virtually all" is addressed on Q2 of the FAQ after many discussions through the years and many editors reverting the removal of it. Plus Ehrman specifically uses such a phrase directly, so this is sourced. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources you are talking about generally all source each other, so within their community, they do indeed have a consensus opinion. The problem is that the community of Biblical scholars is nothing like the community of historians. You know this full well because you have yet to tell me why you feel Biblical scholars are the equals of historians, yet don't want them to be referred to as Biblical scholars.

Regarding fringe theories, claiming to be unconvinced by an argument is not itself a theory of any kind. Only the unconvincing argument can be a theory and that is where the burden of evidence lies. Cutelyaware (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Stanton - "Today nearly all historians", Ehrman - "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—", Van Voorst "Biblical scholars and classical historians", etc. See Michael Grant (Roman historian) and Paul Johnson (general historian) too. Other sources also state "scholars" in general. They do not limit it to just "biblical" scholars. Also, see Q3 on the quality of the literature that exists on non-historicity. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's take Ehrman for example since you quoted him. Ehrman has been about as Christian as one can be, dedicating his life to parsing meaning from Biblical text. So when he says "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—", he's talking about Christian researchers like himself who are motivated by their religious beliefs. These are all far from being mainstream historians. I'm sure the stories are similar for the others that you listed. The reason why historians don't refute the claims about the historical Jesus is because there is far too little hard evidence to study for them to be able to successfully publish in scientific journals. Cutelyaware (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "virtually all scholars" is a rigorous statement in the context of the topic, given the propensity for confirmation bias. What evidence, if any, exists for his baptism and crucifixion? A bunch of secondary sources citing each author wouldn't really qualify as rigorous proof, in my opinion. Maybe a softer statement is more appropriate: "The majority of modern scholars believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely that a figure known as Jesus did exist than did not." I believe anything else is a stretch... 2A02:3031:17:25E9:1:1:F038:BD16 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cutelyaware:

• Regarding consensus is when everyone agrees, if you din't know how WP:CONSENSUS works, you're wasting the time of your fellow editors.
• Regarding The sources you are talking about generally all source each other:

• is that so?
• and if so, so what? Scholars refer to each other; that's normal;
• the sources, az in "kind of sources: cheap rhetorics; what other WP:RS have you got in store? Where is the consensus among historians that Jesus as a historical person did not exist? Or even the glimpse of dissent?

• Why are Biblical scholars not the equal of scholars? Sources, please; not your personal biases;
• Ehrman is not Christian; get your facts straight;
• Regarding I'm sure the stories are similar for the others that you listed, what makes you so sure? Did you check, or is it your personal bias which you prefer to leave unchecked?
• Regarding historians don't refute the claims about the historical Jesus: again rhetorics and your personal preferred agenda; why would historians have to "refute" "claims" about a historical Jesus? You a priori suppose that there is something to refute. Ask yourself another question: why are there only a few scholars who bother to engage, "refute," the CMT?

And please write in a clear and unambiguous way. Which consensus are you referring to? Among scholars (I didn't write "consensus" in that line in the lead), or here at this discussion. And what does claiming to be unconvinced by an argument is not itself a theory of any kind. Only the unconvincing argument can be a theory and that is where the burden of evidence lies mean? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your snide comment "what other WP:RS have you got in store?", I'm very offended and insist you cease all personal attacks or I'll report you. Same for "not your personal biases" and "get your facts straight." These are completely unacceptable.

I said "consensus", not WP:CONSENSUS. IE in the dictionary sense which means everyone agrees. Wikipedia has a far more nuanced version of the term specifically because of this sort of fight. WP:CONSENSUS says "The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group." which is pretty much the dictionary definition.

Regarding scholars referring to each other, that's obviously correct. What's not common in the sciences is for entirely separate populations of researchers in one area to pretty much only reference each other, without any cross-over into related fields, with references also being made in the other direction.

"Why are Biblical scholars not the equal of scholars?" If they really were the equivalent of scholars in general, then why do you care so much? Instead you should be proud to call them Biblical scholars, right?

Regarding Ehrman, He's only recently disavowed Christianity. The writings that everyone likes to quote are from when he was a born-again evangelical. But you knew that already, didn't you? That's very disingenuous.

Regarding "what does claiming to be unconvinced by an argument is not itself a theory of any kind. Only the unconvincing argument can be a theory and that is where the burden of evidence lies mean?", it means just what it says. You know it as the "Christ myth theory". That's a straw man tactic to try to frame people unconvinced by the Christ theory as the ones that are promulgating a proposition that they haven't proven.

Let me put it another way: Are you convinced by the "historical Zeus theory"? No? then I demand that you prove your Zeus myth theory. Cutelyaware (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, will you?

• If they really were the equivalent of scholars in general, then why do you care so much? Instead you should be proud to call them Biblical scholars, right?. And let me note that you are the one who cares so much.
• He's only recently disavowed Christianity. The writings that everyone likes to quote are from when he was a born-again evangelical. But you knew that already, didn't you? That's very disingenuous. is nonsense. Ehrman started to doubt his faith in the 1990s; see Bart Ehrman, Leaving the Faith. His most-referenced publications are from the late 1990s and thereafter. His popular writings, Misquoting Jesus (2007), Jesus, Interrupted (2010), Forged (2011), Did Jesus Exist (2012) are from the 2000s and later. See also the number of reviews for his individual publications at Amazon; Misquoting Jesus 2,770, How Jesus Became God (2014) 2,149, Jesus, Interrupted (2009) 1,822. I don't know what your views are based on, but don't accuse me of being disingenuous when you're incorrect.

Regarding "It just means what it says": still incomprehensible.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that there are extremely few non-Christian scholars that have avowed any opinion on the historical existence of Jesus, and, due to problems with bias, the view of Christian scholars on the topic is irrelevant. The phrasing of "virtually all scholars" gives the false impression that there actually are a large number of unbiased scholars that have come to a consensus. There isn't.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your statement the view of Christian scholars on the topic is irrelevant is jaw-dropping... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I wish I believed I had brought you to a revelation of sorts, but I'm certain you are expressing genuine astonishment. When researching Haile Selassie, how much weight do you give to the conclusions that Rastafarians draw in comparison to those held by the non-Rastafarians?—Kww(talk) 14:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Just adding that G.A Well (agnostic and iconic former mythicist) says "Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure." See Q5 of FAQ too for diversity of scholars. Easy examples are Grant, Casey, Ehrman (all non-religious) who have written on the matter too. It is not a secret club. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a secret club ... just an extremely small one, which is the point. The lede of this article gives the impression that the historicity of Christ is a topic of avid study with an overwhelming consensus among a large number of historians. In fact, It's barely studied by non-Christians. Once one dismisses the Christian historians, one is left with handfuls of sources. I note that even your hearsay from Well doesn't define "secular scholar". Is a Christian historian working for a secular university a "secular historian"?—Kww(talk) 18:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"In fact, It's barely studied by non-Christians." Jesus is an insignificant itinerant preacher, who left no surviving writings. I don't see why non-Christians would care about a figure with minimal impact. Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a rather odd view point... Whatever one's views of religion and Christianity might be, from an anthropological point of view, the impact of Jesus on human history and the world at large has been enormous. From Roman emperors such as Constantine to the crusades to the powerful popes of the middle ages, the Christian faith has been a powerful driver for significant events. I would expect any historian to be interested in the question of whether he actually existed or not, and it's surprising really that Wikipedia is one of the main online sources actually discussing this point and that we're almost having to rely on WP:SYNTH to get the point across rather than a definitive secondary review by a historian unconnected with theology. I'm not for a minute suggesting we should change anything, as implied by some above - the consensus and sourcing is still fairly unanimous, I just wish there were more of it!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to add to this list the colonization/christianization of the new world, which also propelled Christianity to the East around Islamic civilization, and the development of western capitalism, which is still the dominant economic system in the world... warshy ^(¥¥) 19:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This is part of why it frustrates me that people insist on forcing this article to present a false image of the state of scholarship. You're right ... the impact of Jesus on history is enormous. Enormous enough that I would expect to find Buddhists and atheists drawn to the study of the facts related to that impact. Instead, we get crickets. The cynic in me says that in a world dominated by Christians, they would find it career-limiting to publish the conclusions they reach, but I've never asked for the article to include that sort of inference. I'd just like it to drop the hyperbole and exaggeration. A handful of objective historians have published conclusions on the topic of the article, and the article should report their conclusions while noting the paucity of sources.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: That was a serious question, and quite relevant to this discussion. If you were researching Haile Selassie, how much weight would you give to the conclusions that Rastafarians draw in comparison to those held by the non-Rastafarians?—Kww(talk) 21:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Jesus of history, Christ of myth

@Ramos1990: I don't think that that quote fits in a subsection on the only two 'facts' on which scholars agree. And, the 'historical Jesus, mythological Christ' is a well-known trope; it's not just Schweitzer and Ehrman who think so. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Jonathan, the quote is a historical summary of Schweitzer's views. Personally, not sure why it is there since Ehrmans summary of scholarship is in p. 270. It muddles the variables. I think that "Jesus of history, Christ of faith" is more appropriate, but not helpful since some have complained that it adds another layer on this article that is not necessary - nor is it what the sources discuss. After all the question is on Jesus of Nazareth, not if Jesus was the Christ. On actual scholarship, Ehrman says "Nearly all critical scholars agree at least on those points about the historical Jesus. But there is obviously a lot more to say, and that is where scholarly disagreements loom large - disagreements not over whether Jesus existed but over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher he was." (DJE? p. 270) What do you think? Ramos1990 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I say, we use that quote instead of the Schweitzer-summary. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Jesus was a common name in 1st century Judaea

The name Jesus (Yēšūaʿ (ישוע) in Hebrew) was among the most common names for Jewish males in Judaea during that period.

References

This fact supports the assertion that a man name Jesus of Nazareth was likely to have lived in that place at that time, and should be included in the article. DiverDave (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC) DiverDave (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this input. I sort of agree, but you practically point out that the English name variation differs from the original version. So, basically, nobody would have been called "Jesus" in 1st century occupied Palestine. It has generally been accepted that our Jesus spoke Aramaic (although possibly also Hebrew and Greek). The transliteration "Isho" should suffice as an impression of the assumed original (but what is the original spelling?).

A combination of Jesus with "of Nazareth" (in whatever version) makes any mention more precise, but besides the use of English, this opens another can of worms (see: Nazarene (title)). Although the gospels mention Nazareth as the place where Jesus came from/grew up, the original Greek Nazarēnos/Nazōraios designations that have been translated as "of Nazareth" may actually "have a religious significance instead of denoting a place of origin". The oldest records for a place with this name are actually from the gospels (presumably in 2nd century copies, in Greek), while the presumably earlier Pauline epistles didn't refer to Nazareth nor Nazarēnos/Nazōraios.

Your bluelinked Yeshua page and the Jesus (name) page clarify that "Jesus" was derived from the Latinised version of the Greek version "Ἰησοῦς", which corresponds to the Hebrew version, which apparently was "a verbal derivative from "to rescue", "to deliver"". It is thus comparable to "Messiah"?! The pages also mention that ישוע was actually a common, late variation of the OT name of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Joshua). This is very relevant in the light of an interesting aspect that Tom Dykstra pointed out. He described how a book by John Grisham was inspired by a true event, and how the main character received another name, and then asked: "What if the first Christians chose to use the name Jesus for its symbolic value, even though the historical person’s actual name was Mordecai? How meaningful and accurate would it be to say “yes, Jesus was a historical person” in such cases?"

Some practical considerations:

-the statement "a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE" is very unimpressive because there must have been many people who fit the description. Should we for instance include the commonly attributed events of his baptism and crucifixion?

-the use of the English name in such a statement is questionable. Should we add the Greek of the original gospel texts? And the assumed original Aramaic name?

-I agree with DiverDave that the ordinarity of the name is relevant to the topic of this page, but it seems in need of some useful context. Does the cited source or any other provide anything useful? (the linked page offers insufficient access)

-in an academic publication, historian Dykstra points out that the name "Jesus" may have been chosen for its symbolic value, rather than its historical accuracy. This seems relevant to the question of HoJ. But where would this fit on the page?

-in this context, it seems relevant to mention facts about the meaning and the OT background of the name. Are there any reliable sources that properly describe these aspects, preferably in this context? (maybe DiverDave's cited source?) Joortje1 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Much worth considering here; just pointing out the obvious that we need to cite better sources than Bauckham, considering his religious belief and the implicit bias. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. There is certainly much to consider here. To say that "a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine in the 1st century CE" is much like saying “a guy named Robert lived in Cleveland in the 20th century”. It is very nonspecific, but nevertheless it is highly likely to be a statement of fact. Whether Jesus of Nazareth was baptized, crucified, performed miracles, was divine, or was an effective teacher are the subject of a different conversation. Just my opinion.DiverDave (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

'facts' according to a theologian

Recently I deleted Dunn's opinion of the relevance of the "universally assent" commanding baptism and crucifixion "to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission". After it reappeared, I just further specified Dunn's function description, changed the present tense to the past tense (because he has been dead for more than 3 years , and I think the past tense is more factual for anything stated in the past anyhow), and removed bits of the qoute that only repeated the preceding note, but...

I suggest we totally delete it for the following reasons:

1: The quoted "what and why of Jesus' mission" is more or less a paraphrased version of "what he did and taught", which according to FAQ 1a A should not be discussed in the article.

2: The statement adds little to the use of Dunn's quote in the preceding note.

3: In context, Dunn merely considers where to start the narrative of his book. His reasoning therefore doesn't even explain anything about methodology (for as far as that may have been its reason for inclusion) and doesn't seem relevant for the Historical Jesus page, let alone here.

4: I'm trying to step over my suspicions concerning risks for confirmation bias when religious people research the historicity of a subjects that they regard as the center of their view of the world. Maybe there are people who identify as Christians who merely believe he existed and that he may have preached or at least inspired some useful ideas, but usually the term implies much more. In Dunn's case, his title "Lightfoot Professor of Divinity" (named after a bishop) identifies a paradigmatic theological consideration of divinity, which makes an extremely poor credential where objective mainstream academic consideration about historical facts is desired.

5. Nonetheless, I think any notable argument for or against historicity can/should be included on the page, even if the source could indicate some atheistic or some religious bias (as long as that context is clear). But since HoJ is a scholarly subject (as the subheader points out), the academic weight is very important. I have strong doubts whether Dunn's book, for the religious William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, has properly been vetted in mainstream academic circles, so it probably should not be considered a reliable source.

The quote thus only serves to give the opion of one theologian, comes from a primary source with little academic weight, and has little or no relevance to historicity.

What I think is the most interesting about the quote is an aspect that says a lot about the way we should look at much of the claims in this article: Dunn here uses quotation marks around the word 'facts'! Doesn't he thus imply that both baptism and crucifiction may have been claimed to be factual, but should not actually be considered as entirely trustworhthy elements of the narrative, at least not in a historical sense?

Maybe there are good reasons for inclusion that I simply fail to recognise. Can somebody clarify any serious objection to deletion? Joortje1 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Serious? You doubt whether Dunn's book, for the religious William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, has properly been vetted in mainstream academic circles? You think that Dunn (2003), Jesus Remembered, is a primary source with little academic weight? Which planet are you living on? Google scholar gives 917 cites...Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Joortje1, I am surprised you extract all of this commentary from such a simple sentence from Dunn. Dunn is contributing to what other scholars have said (Levine, Crossan, Ehrman, etc). Crucifixion and baptism are not stating anything about what he taught or to did, this is on what happened to him. Dunn is a well established expert on the topic and that is why he is cited here and in relevant articles too. The publisher is academic and he is mainstream. See FAQ Q5 on your concerns of scholars who happen to be Christian. The focus on a scholars title is odd. By such logic, only slave owners can speak about whether or not slaves should be free, because slaves may have confirmation bias.

Such commentary exposes a bias against Christian scholars that does not belong on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"a bias against Christian scholars" Well, if the scholar has imaginary friends in the sky or hears voices, he/she is not that reliable. Dimadick (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is what a fundamentalist believer wrote: "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." That helps you understand how far are mainstream Bible scholars from the POV of an orthodox priest or pastor. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It amazes me how desperately you cling to a completely false impression of Wikipedia policies, Ramos1990. It's a question of bias. No one is proposing dismissing Christians' opinions on toothpaste, or sealing wax, or any of myriads and myriads of topics. There is one topic that they cannot be trusted to be objective on, and even then, no one is proposing that we shouldn't mention their view. To rely on it and present it as representing scholarly consensus is completely inappropriate, though. I repeat the question that Joshua refuses to answer: how much weight should we give a Rastafarian historian when discussing Haile Selassie?—Kww(talk) 03:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We rely on what the sources say, not Wikipedia editor views. When expert after expert says there is a clear consensus and that the opposing view is fringe, you cannot all of a sudden insert your view above theirs. That would be WP:OR. See Ehrman, Casey, Wells, Grant, etc. They are all non-religious and they say the same thing as everyone else on the matter. None of them state that there is an issue on objectivity on historicity of Jesus either. Ehrman for example says "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." Ramos1990 (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

But there is not "expert after expert" once you take bias into account: there's a handful of objective historians that claim another group of historians are fringe. Despite your protestations, our policies do not require that we accept the output of biased sources at face value. No one is asking that this article promote the Christ Myth theory, only that it stop using hyperbolic terms when describing the situation: all of this "virtually all scholars of antiquity" nonsense makes it appear that there is some large group of objective historians that support Christ's historical existence. I note you duck the obvious parallel question as well: how much weight should we give a Rastafarian historian when discussing Haile Selassie?—Kww(talk) 05:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The Rastafarians in this case are the people who believe there was no historical Jesus; diehard agnostics can be quite dogmatic and one-sided. You're confusing two issues: the question whether there was a historical Jesus, and the question what he was in a religious sense. There's a wide spectrum of beliefs regarding the second question; the first question, answered by critically analyzing the early Christian texts, which is the expertise of precisely those scholars you deem biased, yields the answer 'Yes, there was a historical Jesus, and there is very little we can be certain of'. That's a sobering answer, and quite uncomfortable for conservative Christians. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Your answer implies that you don't grasp the analogy. There's nothing wrong with being a Rastafarian, and being a Rastafarian doesn't imply anything is wrong with their reasoning power, but their belief that Selassie was God in physical form makes them an extremely poor source for things about Selassie. I'm confusing nothing: someone that believes that Christ is somehow the centre of the universe is incapable of objectively analysing data about Christ's existence. Their opinion on the matter has no weight.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You doubt that Haile Selassie existed? And yes, you're confusing thing: someone that believes that Christ is somehow the centre of the universe is incapable of objectively analysing data about Christ's existence. We're talking herd about the Jesus of history, not the Christ of faith. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Selassie existed -- but did he display the stigmata of Christ? No reason at all to believe he did, regardless of the protestations of Rastafarians. Yes, someone that believes that Christ is somehow the centre of the universe is incapable of objectively analysing data about Christ's existence. That's an absolutely true statement: to someone that believes Christ is the centre of the universe, pathetically small scraps of evidence are highly convincing. From the insignificant handful of non-Christians that examine those small scraps and come to the same conclusion, it's safe to say that the conclusion is not as strongly warranted as they claim. I don't understand why you think that religious faith doesn't interfere with objectivity. You think it's easy for people to examine evidence and deny the cornerstones of their faith? If it were, there would not be any religious people left.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you start reading Dunn, to get an idea what we're talking about. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you stop treating people that argue with you like idiots rather than engaging their position. You start from a completely ludicrous position and then refuse to discuss it. People that treat Christ as a divine figure are far more likely to examine evidence and conclude that he exists than people that do not. What part of that statement do you consider to be untrue?—Kww(talk) 21:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You have hardcore evangelicals who argue there was no historical Jesus (i.e. Jesus as reconstructed by modern historians): there only is the Christ of faith, take it or leave it. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In Maurcie Casey's (agnostic) book on mythicism, he states "the critical scholars among whom I am happy to have spent most of my life, whether Christian, Jewish, or irreligious. These wonderful people were not concerned by 'peer pressure' or the 'constraints of academic tenure'...none of these people had significant connections with fundamentalists or mythicists."3 He and Ehrman also document extensive bias on mythicists (they are not objective historians, mostly amateurs). Ramos1990 (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to make this article more objective.

Flawed Language

This article, along with other related articles on the topic, possesses flaws with respect to the strong language used. Having read some of the sources, I am of the belief that the majority of scholars on the topic believe it more likely that Jesus existed than that he did not, based on the available, but limited, primary sources. But the language used in this article make it seem like this is an overwhelming fact, which it quite clearly isn't. If I say, have a bag of pebbles where 70 percent of the pebbles are brown, and 30 percent are white, the fact that I'm more likely to draw a brown pebble doesn't make it a certainty. More efforts should be made including discussions about the relevant primary evidence.

Also, if he existed historically, the claims of him being baptised and crucified have far less evidence: at this point you're more or less restricted to the bible (maybe a few other sources, but fewer). Even if this were the best hypothesis to make, the level of certainty should be clarified.

I'm afraid to say, with the current language, the article seems unscientific. I'm not denying that Jesus possibly existed, but the burden of proof lies on proving that he did, which requires more critical analysis of the evidence. 2A02:3031:17:25E9:1:1:F038:BD16 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Look at the sources in Note 1 and Note 2. Experts describe the situation as such in their own words. Even irreligious one like Ehrman, Grant, Casey, etc. Wikipedia goes by what sources say, not random editor POV on the matter. Also see FAQ "Quotes" section for dozens of sources on this and "Q3" on books claiming the opposite in this talk page for your concerns. Actually read the whole FAQ since this has been answered so many times in the talk. Even mythicists like Robert Price, formerly G.A Wells, Michael Martin, etc acknowledge the consensus. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, another thing that stands out is the various appeals to authority and character attacks used in the sources. Quotes such as "No serious scholar thinks he didn't exist". It fails to qualify the uncertainty in the evidence and comes across as unscientific. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

My point of view is not to reject the consensus, rather use softer, more scientifically accurate language. I think this point has not been refuted. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether that consensus is accurate is another matter. I'm trying to reach a compromise here. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, an FAQ created by editors that have a clear, strong opinion on the topic, and are unwilling to compromise, isn't a way to resolve the issue. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edits diff are unwarranted and suggestive. You changed "agree" in "believe"; it's not a matter of "belief," but of conclusions based on painstakingly textual analysis. You also expanded 'CMT [...] fringe theory' with "among scholars active in the area." This is misplaced; it suggests that there are scholars, or areas of scholarship, where the CMT is taken serious. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The contrary perspective is not the Christ myth theory. It's whether Jesus existed in a manner consistent with the claims written in the article.

Going on evidence from thousands of years ago definitely requires some level of belief. Questions on this matter, given the religious bias, cannot be treated with the same level of certainty, as, say, the existence of climate change.

An often used argument by you two is that "wikipedia goes by the sources". The problem is, the overwhelming body of sources used in this article are secondary sources that cite each other, rather than direct primary sources. The cherrypicking concern is not one to be readily swept away by fallacious appeals to authority. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It is also such strong langauge to call the CMT a fringe theory. Again, compare with climate science denial. It doesn't matter whether the technical usage of the term may be regarded as correct, more the interpretation by the lay reader. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. See the policy WP:SECONDARY. Also there is no CMT scholarship anywhere in academia. A recent extensive scholarly survey of CMT literature by Maurice Casey [in Note 2] "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship...They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications." Indeed, they do not even pop up as an entry in Oxford Reference which covers all the humanities including all historical fields. It is not a view in any fields of scholarship. Here is another scholar who did a survey of the literature [6]. Ehrman says the same thing since he surveyed the literature too in his book on the topic! Van Voorst did too see Note 2. Even mythicists like Price and Martin admit that. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, appeal to authority. The secondary sources used seem unbiased: wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but those that analyse primary sources. It would be better if the quotes reflect actual scholarly efforts rather than "everybody thinks so...". The latter, in my experience, is a giant red flag in an argument. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:Fringe for how wikipedia works in representing views according to their actual prominence in scholarship. Fringe views do not get equal time with consensus views in wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion its not a matter of whether or not the label is correct, more the interpretation of the lay reader. Compare with climate science denial, which is more or less the canonical fringe theory. I think using this label here is a misrepresentation of the facts. I'm happy with softer language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Most facts in Ancient history are based upon scant evidence. There is more reason to doubt that Julius Caesar was killed by Brutus than there is to doubt that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that ancient history is a softer science. But with regards to biographical details of Caesar, there are a lot more sources, which are also more objective (coming from historians of the time period). With regards to Jesus, however, the evidence is far less, especially given the obvious bias with regards to biblical literature.

I am not saying he didn't exist, in fact, his existence may be more likely than not. But the strong language used in this article makes very bold claims, which don't match the evidence. Fallacious appeals to authority, and character arguments also make this article look unprofessional and unscientific. Which, for the lay reader, is a cause for concern. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As a reference, the Historicity of Mohammed article uses much better language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"Fallacious appeals to authority"—you might want to read WP:VERECUNDIAM, and then a handbook of logic: appeal to authority is not always a fallacy, especially when we never perform "rational argumentation" but we merely WP:CITE the views of experts.

We don't have a problem with atheists. We don't have a problem with Christians. We do have a problem with epistemically irresponsible people. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy, the problem is the way the argumentation for the historicity in this article has been carried out. The quotes included from the experts are using appeals to authority. Far better would be quotes that reflect a critical analysis of the evidence. My point isn't to make a dramatic change to this article, more use softer, more scientifically appropriate language. I don't think the logic behind my edit has been refuted. Also, please refrain from character attacks (another fallacy I might add). 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. Till now, nobody else agrees with you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I would refer to numerous similar comments above in the talk history. You haven't engaged with my reasoning either. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If we're second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP: perhaps Julius Caesar died by falling upon his own sword, and Brutus was scapegoated. It is unlikely, but is far more likely than Jesus not existing. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the latter has far more evidence, without religious bias, and thus not an appropriate comparison. There must be a way of using a softer, more scientific tone in this article. The article on the historicity of Mohammed, for example, discusses the primary sources first, and the ones which are flawed, before stating the conclusion.

Again, I'm just trying to make the article reflect the uncertainties associated with the available evidence. Let alone the big claim that he was "baptized". I might add that the fact that the FAQ page exists at all reflects the fact that the main editors of this article do not truly reflect the consensus. I believe some compromises need to be made.

I'm not denying the sources. But let's please try to remove the tone from the article that makes his existence seem like an irrefutable fact. Especially considering the page is "historicity of Jesus" and not the biographical page. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We're not second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You can doubt every fact of Ancient history through paying lip service to rationality. It does not work like that around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not denying it, more saying we should reach a compromise to use softer language. Compare with related historicity articles. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's like the Shakespeare authorship question—such question does not really exist among experts in that field.

You can adduce no WP:RS that what you're advocating is even remotely a mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Typical that the link for Historicity of Muhammad is incorrect. And if we are to compare articles, take a look at Quest for the historical Jesus - actually, read it. The sole reason that the Historicity of Jesus-article exists is because people keep arguing that there was no historical Jesus, and that that all scholarship on this topic is wrong and biased - augh... Don't bother about scholarship when you believe something, right? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Its feel that you haven't understood my point at all. My point of view is to not enter an edit war, but to try and reach a consensus with regards to the language used in this article, which is a poor reflection of the actual certainty with which claims can be made. Again, I'm not arguing that he did not exist, more the fact that, if the burden of proof lies with establishing that he did, one needs to examine the evidence critically. The quotes from the scholarly consensus should reflect the critical analysis they have done, rather than them using appeals to authority. Another main reason for this is that this is a historiographical article, not a biographical one.

There was a typo in the link I have provided, but I think it's unambiguous enough to find the article I intended. Again, character attacks are a fallacy, I feel that you would do better to use a nicer tone with other editors. 2A02:3032:308:78AA:317B:8347:5C26:FA97 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's more typical that Joshua Jonathan points out a mistake that simply concerns choosing the transliteration "Mohammed" that is preferred in several other languages instead of the English one?

Thanks for reminding me to have another look at Quest for the historical Jesus. The large section on Criticism has plenty of useful info like "The historical analysis techniques used by Biblical scholars have been questioned" and "A number of scholars have criticized historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness" (all with reliable sources of course). Your remark "Don't bother about scholarship when you believe something, right?" seems spot on to me, but probably not in the way you meant it. Joortje1 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You should take a better look at that article; what the Criticism-section says is that any "reconstruction" of a historical Jesus is hardly possible. That's why this article says there's 'almost universal consent' about only three facts: he existed, he was baptized, and he was crucified. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur. None from that section refer to historicity, so none of it applies here. But also noting that checks and balances are mentioned there too. Just a side note, there are no universal historical methods among historians and their views on objectivity have declined. They recognize this, which is why historical research diversified in the twentieth century across the board (Georg Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge). And why we have various histories on race, gender, politics, and national narratives. But there are basic agreed upon facts in each field, however. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

So we state "Standard historical criteria are used", don't describe the currently used methodologies beyond "research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible", and thus merely suggest that the criteria are standard fare in some unspecified scholarly discipline(s) that discern(s) historical facts from myth?

Oh wait, we also mention one specific criterion as an argument for 2 'facts' (as far as I could find between all the claims about consensus versus fringe, because why would be bother explaining more about methodologies as long as there is a virtually absolute scholarly consensus?

Certainly it's more important to ignore the immense criticism on these criteria (mainly from within the academic discipline itself) because the general scholarly methodologies simply don't apply to historicity, right? And this contributes to the objectivity of the article, right? Joortje1 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so because no matter what methods they employ or what conclusions they come up with on a particular portrait of Jesus, they at least agree that Jesus existed. That is the point. Each discipline has criteria, but it is usually is very broad like use sources. Obviously using sources is pretty standard stuff. Sometimes they use stuff from memory studies too or methods from archeology too. But that does not alter such basics like existence. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This article doesn't just claim existence, but also that he was baptised and crucified. I was only proposing modifying the language to make it softer, given the burden of proof is on proving these claims. I'm not denying scholarship or doing research. Also, one should be careful when one cites secondary sources not to cherrypick, which may be a concern with this article. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

To add a more practical thought: anybody can help make this artcile more objective by editing it, even in very simple ways, and hopefully without as much push-back as we receive when we put a proposal for change or a question on the talk page (unfortunately some active editors seem extremely strict on "we go by what the sources say" and don't appreciate any wp:commonsense editorial judgement, so we'll just have to try what sticks).

There are plenty of small adjustments that can put some of the cited claims into perspective, or just make some statements slightly more factual (for instance the profession of the claimants, whether a book is a popular one or a peer-reviewed academic publication for a reputable mainstream publisher, or the date for some sources that are more than just a few decades old, or even a change from present to past tense for at least the deceased authors).

Some claims leave out a bit of relevant context, which may therefore stick out to critical readers, so we can check the sources for additional thoughts that may put things back into perspective. Joortje1 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR or WP:SYN. It is the policy that we stick to what the sources say. Also multiple editors have already addressed this to you including you imposing your personal views of scholarship on the article in previous sections here in the talk. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

Yes, of course, why do you think we wouldn't keep the guidelines in mind?
I basically gave the advice to check the verifiability and to WP:MINE the cited sources.
WP:RS: “Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process”. And of course there's WP:5P5, especially WP:COMMONSENSE and also WP:CSIOR.
Could you maybe consider when your ad infinitum standard replies may go over the fine line between [insert your reason for reply here] and WP:LAWYERING or WP:HEAR, or maybe a bit of WP:OWN?
You know I backed up my "personal" views with some RS that may actually deserve some place on the page. But you personally brought up these mainstream peer-reviewed volumes that seem to be even more reputable and much more critical of biblical scholarship:
-On the Historicity of Jesus by historian Richard Carrier (2014 Sheffield Phoenix Press)
-Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by religion scholar Raphael Lataster (2019 Brill Publishers, available to active wikipedians via WikipediaLibrary) (note that wikipedia explicitly calls the academic discipline that Lataster worked in "Objective study of religion", although it has nonetheless been criticised for imposing a theological Christian agenda.
Sorry for being slow with reading and processing all that information (between other tasks and distractions), but is there any reason why you still haven't used these sources for the article (despite that Carrier-quote in this thread)? Joortje1 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've tried doing so. Even a very small edit like "a large consensus of historians believe it is likely that Jesus existed" has been met with stubborn pushback. I can't understand what the issue is, surely there's no certainty in the matter. The common response is often a dubious comparison to some other historical figure. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding is there any reason why you still haven't used these sources for the article - yes, because it is a fringe-view, rejected by 'virtually all acholars of the topic'. Carrier and Lataster are treated at the CMT-page, to which this page links; Bart Ehrman, among a few others, has been so kind to spend his valuable time at explaining why this is a fringe-view; most scholars won't even bother to do so. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you quantify how many scholars there are working on the topic, and what "virtually all scholars" means? I believe this should also be critically examined. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

See:

• Christina Petterson, review of OtHoJ for a scholarly review of Carrier: "parallel universe," "the fundamentalist drive of the book."
• Marko Marina, Historical Jesus and Mythicism: A Critical Evaluation of Richard Carrier’s Theory:

Carrier was guided by his ideological agenda, not by serious historical work, which is most evident in his readings of Paul’s epistles. In addition, Carrier’s underlying assumption about the development of Jesus’ tradition in the 1st century is completely wrong. His theses are utterly misplaced without any positive evidence in primary sources. Hence, it is no surprise that Carrier hasn’t won any supporters among critical scholars.

Regarding Lataster's book, I can't even find it on Google Scholar. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Multiple editors besides me such as User:Mathglot, User:Jeppiz, User:desmay have already mentioned to Joortje1 that fringe scholars like Carrier and Lataster are WP:UNDUE per the WP:Fringe guidelines multiple times. It is obvious that the publisher DOES NOT make anyone mainstream. Any more than if David Irving were to get a peer reviewed publication for Holocaust denial, somehow would make his denialist fringe views mainstream or even accepted by the mainstream. Creationists get peer reviewed papers all the time, but are not featured in the Evolution article for example. Nor are holocaust deniers featured in the holocaust article. Mythicist Robert Price describes how scholars view CMT - "as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought alongside Holocaust Denial and skepticism about the Apollo moon landings." Thanks for those sources too. Marko's source clearly says "Although such theories have long been rejected by scholars regardless of their worldview (Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics)" too. Carrier of course has been extensively criticized by historians like Daniel Gullotta [7] who document a high level of criticisms from mainstream scholars of every stripe and finds his arguments as unconvincing due to "lack of evidence, strained readings, and troublesome assumptions" and even reaffirms fringe status of mythicism "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." He rightly observes "Scholars, however, may rightly question whether Carrier’s work and those who evangelize it exhibit the necessary level of academic detachment...Whereas mythicists will accuse scholars of the historical Jesus of being apologists for the theology of historic Christianity, mythicists may in turn be accused of being apologists for a kind of dogmatic atheism." Lataster's book was actually originally a self published book co-written with Richard Carrier [8] as Lataster notes in Questioning the Historicity of Jesus in page 24 - further linking him directly with fringe scholars like Carrier. His own views are fringe as he pretty much regurgitates Carrier throughout the book. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Seven references for Lataster; a blockbuster... Review link by Christopher M. Hansen:

...one may be sorely disappointed by the lack of interaction with secondary literature in this book. Most of James D. G. Dunn’s work on Paul goes unreferenced [...] why write a book if you are unable to interact with the current scholarship and research? [...] the shortcomings that would be spotted by nearly any academic familiar with the issues that he engages [...] I cannot recommend this book for much other than rebuttal [...] its lack of interaction with leading scholarship on the issues it covers means that all of its evaluations and conclusions are wholly lacking, as they simply do not account for other prominent arguments and positions. If one is interested, I could only recommend borrowing it from a university library because the volume is certainly not worth the expense of $210.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Was exactly my main problem with this article, and your wording that its clearly a false comparison to equate the contrary view on the matter with creationism or climate denial. The latter theories go against a large body of evidence, whereas here we are relying on a few sources (even fewer unbiased) and a large body of secondary sources that _interpret_ the same sources. There is a clear lack of data and independent analysis, hence the language used is inaccurate, misleading, and portrays a false certainty on the matter.

Again, this article needs more critical scholarship, and literature that reflects the analysis of the primary sources that allow one to deduce the claims, rather than appeals to a majority or authority. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Up to you to provide those sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Article doesn't reflect editor consensus

I would like to point out that there have been many editors (not just myself, seeing old talk pages) that have had concerns with this, and related articles. Attempts at compromise in the language have been consistently overruled by editors who seem to have strong opinions on the matter (see also the FAQ page). I implore future editors to this article to seek a more scientific, objective tone. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

They're overruled because they don't stick to WP:RS, but to their personal opinions. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Those editors ignore the sources, ignore what scholarship actually says, push their own views above experts in the sources, and violate wikipedia policy via WP:SYN and WP:OR by pushing fringe views using such wording. It is usually mythicists and mythicist sympathizers who do this over and over. No one else does. The sources settle the matter, not wikieditor opinions. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It frustrates me that what you refuse to agree to has nothing to do with what most are asking for. I'm not seeing a push for Christ myth prominence or anything of the sort. People are just asking for the hyperbole to be removed -- there are precious few objective historians that have studied this topic and issued an opinion, but the article reads as if there were a massive consensus among a large number.—Kww(talk) 01:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There is. Even mythicists like Richard Carrier admit that - " I responded to these sincere inquiries with the same general reply: the non-existence of Jesus is simply not plausible, as arguments from silence in the matter aren't valid, nor could they ever be sufficient to challenge what is, after all, the near-universal consensus of well-qualified experts." and "The historicity of Jesus Christ is currently the default consensus." not sure what else to say. Sounds very much like Ehrman's "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." Pretty close to verbatim. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they didn't exist, I said "precious few". So few you can count them on your fingers. You would expect more interest in the study of a man whose teachings have had such a profound impact on human history.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And as has been the case for many years on this article, the real issue is the difference between the existence of a human, non-supernatural Jesus, and the existence of a supernatural divine miracle-worker. Modern scholarship is happy to accept that many Jews named Jesus did live in that place at that time, and that at least one of them stirred up enough drama to warrant the attention of the local Roman authorities. However the divine Saviour part is not widely supported in scholarship. A handful of scholars are also religious Christians who do personally support the supernatural divine miracle-worker view, but that is not the general scholarly consensus. The problem is, once again, that a handful of Wikipedia editors are trying to word this article so as to create the impression that the vast majority of modern scholars actually support the historicity of the divine Saviour part as well. Fix that, and all will be resolved. Wdford (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

See my comment above. I feel that there is a reason that many editors want at least the tone of language used in the article changed. 2A02:3032:308:78AA:317B:8347:5C26:FA97 (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Just stating the obvious: I'm one of the many editors who think the tone of the article is not as academic/encyclopaedic as it should be (see for instance the topic "Style" which was very recently archived by Joshua Jonathan).

Sure, wikipedia is all about the findings of academic experts and about academic consensus. And yes, there is indeed a remarkable amount of absolute consensus claims by biblical scholars and theologians. So, why wouldn't we quote those scholars?

Why do we here receive this "ad infinitum" stream of criticism on style, and NPOV, and why are there so many criticasters who talk about logical fallacies like confirmation bias, wp:cherrypicking, appeal to authority, argumentum ad populum, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" or "all swans are white" (or tomatoes are fruit, or whatever)? Why don’t they just listen to WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?

They must surely all be “mythicists” who are “religiophobic” and want to spread dangerous or just plain silly “fringe theories”, or their own baseless opinions, right? Why not support historicism with more claims like "virtually all scholars" (3x) and "Nearly all critical scholars agree" and "almost universal assent"? And why don’t we make even more clear that mythicism is “fringe” (3x) and has "virtually no support"? Maybe there’s still a paragraph or two in the first half of the article that doesn’t have such an enlightening bit?

Or maybe, just maybe, could there be a bit more to editing than “we go by what the sources say”? Should we maybe consider what it actually means when WP:RS states: “Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process” (and maybe this is even more important when structuring, summarising and paraphrasing the info)? Maybe, just maybe, we could even make some room to emphasise a few clear and convincing arguments for Jesus's historicity (where are they now)? Joortje1 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You mention that the editors seem to be bringing opinions into this, I would say the opposite. I have no bias, I don't care whether Jesus existed or not. I just believe that the language should reflect the amount of evidence, and there's this a considerable amount of uncertainty involved. Moreover, this is a historiographical article rather than a biographical one, hence this analysis should be included here too (not just in the criticism section of the "quest for the historical Jesus" article). I believe this article also makes some bold claims. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with how Wikipedia works, but will try to help. I hear what you are saying, but that is not the way Wikipedia works. See WP:Forum. Wikipedia is not a place to push your thoughts or analysis on historicity. Nor is Wikipedia a place to debate a topic. It only reports the status of scholarship. For one you are not an expert. Actuals experts have stronger opinions than you if you look at their writings. Dozens of sources are in the FAQ and the article. Both mainstream scholars and fringe scholars use bold language (e.g. Ehrman and Carrier above). Every editor views this topic differently and if we went by what every editor wants, you would have infinite edit wars like you are seeing here in the talk page. Another editor may feel your suggestion is incorrect and that we should do the opposite. To avoid such infinite edit wars, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines such as WP:Fringe to set standards, which editors are bound by. Since you and I are not experts, Wikipedia relies on mainstream reliable sources for its content. The experts get to speak in their own words, not us. This is part of WP:Verifiability policy. You are free to write your views on the topic in your own blog or your own website. But Wikipedia is public and has to be based on mainstream sources to provide a common denominator. Also see policy on original research WP:OR. People have lives and do not have time for infinite edit warring or content disputing. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with how Wikipedia works, but will try to help.

WP:PARAPHRASE: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy." Joortje1 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand how Wikipedia works, Ramos1990. Editors evaluate sources and make editorial decisions based on bias, quantity, and numerous factors before incorporating material into articles. Other editors do not have time for editors that constantly use talk pages to oppose editorial changes to articles and use condescending phrasing to belittle other editors. I hope this helps. —Kww(talk) 15:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)